ADAPTATION OF TURKEYS REGIONAL POLICIES TO THE EU …dosya.marmara.edu.tr/avrupa/mjes arsiv/vol 21 2...
Transcript of ADAPTATION OF TURKEYS REGIONAL POLICIES TO THE EU …dosya.marmara.edu.tr/avrupa/mjes arsiv/vol 21 2...
MARMARA JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN STUDIES Volume 21 No: 2 2013 165
ADAPTATION OF TURKEY’S REGIONAL POLICIES TO THE EU
ACQUIS: AN EVALUATION THROUGH PROGRESS REPORTS
(1998-2012)
Onur SUNGUR
Hidayet KESKİN
Murat Ali DULUPÇU
Abstract
Regional disparities, as in every country, represent one of the basic problem
areas in Turkey. Although regional policy has always been given importance in the
five-year development plans, regional disparities still remain as a fundamental
problem in Turkey. According to the data of year 2001 (the latest data available at
the provincial level), there is a huge income differences among the provinces as
much as eleven times. This situation is not much different at the regional level. But
recently Turkey has entered a new route with the EU accession process and has
experienced a transformation process in regional development in terms of both
theory and practice. Considering the recent practices in the field of regional
development, it is seen that the concept of ‘old regionalism’ was abandoned and the
‘new regionalism’ approach has begun to be adopted through focusing on the
concepts such as R&D, innovation, clusters and new industrial spaces.
Legal/institutional regulations related to the acquis have accelerated in the field of
regional development when Turkey’s candidacy status was declared after the 1999
Helsinki Summit.
In this study, the transformation in regional development in Turkey within the
process of the EU will be examined. First Turkey’s development plans and regional
policies will be reviewed. Then, acquis of EU regional policy, the structural funds
and documents will be examined critically, particularly referring to Progress
Reports. Finally, efforts with respect to adaptation to acquis will be evaluated and
the route which Turkey will/must follow in case of EU membership will be
discussed.
Keywords: Regional Development, Regional Policy, Development Plans, Turkey,
Progress Reports
Assist.Prof.Dr., Mehmet Akif Ersoy University, Department of Economics, e-mail:
[email protected] Assist.Prof.Dr., Suleyman Demirel University, Department of Economics, e-mail:
[email protected] Prof.Dr., Suleyman Demirel University, Department of Economics, e-mail: [email protected]
166 ADAPTATION OF TURKEY’S REGIONAL POLICIES TO THE EU ACQUIS
TÜRKİYE’NİN BÖLGESEL POLİTİKALARININ
AB MÜKTESEBATINA UYUMU: İLERLEME RAPORLARI
ARACILIĞIYLA BİR DEĞERLENDİRME (1998-2012)
Özet
Bölgesel farklılıklar, her ülkede olduğu gibi, Türkiye’de de en önemli
sorunlardan birini teşkil etmektedir. Beş Yıllık Kalkınma Planları’nda bölgesel
politikalara önem verilmesine rağmen, bölgesel farklılıklar Türkiye’de hala temel
sorun olarak durmaktadır. 2001 yılı verilerine (il düzeyindeki en son veriler) göre,
iller arasında 11 kat fark bulunmaktadır. Bu durum bölgesel düzeyde de pek farklı
değildir. Ancak son zamanlarda Türkiye AB üyeliği ile birlikte yeni bir rotaya
girmiştir ve hem teori hem de uygulama açısından bölgesel gelişmede bir dönüşüm
yaşamaktadır. Bölgesel gelişmedeki son uygulamalar dikkate alındığında, “eski
bölgeselcilik” yaklaşımının terk edildiği ve AR-GE, inovasyon, kümelenmeler ve
yeni endüstriyel alanlar gibi “yeni bölgeselcilik” yaklaşımının benimsendiği
görülmektedir. Türkiye’nin adaylığının açıklandığı 1999 Helsinki Zirvesi
sonrasında bölgesel gelişme konusundaki müktesebata ilişkin yasal/kurumsal
düzenlemeler de hızlanmıştır.
Bu çalışmada, AB sürecinde Türkiye’de bölgesel gelişmedeki dönüşüm
incelenecektir. Öncelikle, Türkiye’nin kalkınma planları ve bölgesel politikaları ele
alınacaktır. Ardından, AB bölgesel politika müktesebatı, yapısal fonlar ve kritik
dokümanlar, özellikle İlerleme Raporları bağlamında incelenecektir. Son olarak,
müktesebata uyum sağlanmasına yönelik çabalar değerlendirilecek ve AB üyeliği
durumunda Türkiye’nin izleyeceği / izlemesi gereken rota tartışılacaktır.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Bölgesel Gelişme, Bölgesel Politika, Kalkınma Planları,
Türkiye, İlerleme Raporları
Introduction
Regional disparities, as in every country, represent one of the basic problem
areas in Turkey. Although regional policy has always been given importance in the
five-year development plans which had been introduced during the beginning of
planned economy period, regional disparities still remain as a fundamental problem
in Turkey. According to the data of year 2001 (the latest available data at the
provincial level), there is a huge income differences among the provinces as much
as eleven times. For example, while the most developed province Kocaeli has
$6165 per capita GDP, Ağrı has $568 per capita GDP. This situation is not much
different at the regional level. But recently Turkey has entered a new route with the
MARMARA JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN STUDIES 167
EU accession process and has experienced a transformation process in regional
development in terms of both theory and practice.
Turkey’s accession process towards the European Union is one of the most
important determinants in Turkish policymaking mentality and one can see the
effects of this process easily on each policy field. While Turkey tries to adopt the
European acquis, it also tries to become closer to the European structures and
practices of regional and local economic policy. And the most vital economic
impact of the EU membership will on regional policy, even though there has been
little concern in public opinion and policy circles about regional policy.
On 3 October 2005, membership negotiations were symbolically opened with
Turkey, which has been an associate member of the EU since 1963 and an official
candidate since 1999. The historical decision on 17 December 2004 by the
European Council was confirmed by the European heads of state and government
on 17 June 2005. On 29 June, the Commission presented its negotiating framework
to Ankara; and following intense negotiations, the EU-25’s foreign ministers
finalized the document on 3 October. Within hours, Turkey accepted the terms (EC,
2005a; 2005b; 2005c). In the June of the following year, the de facto negotiation
process was initiated between the parties.
Legal/institutional regulations related to the acquis have accelerated in the field
of regional development when Turkey’s candidacy status was declared the after the
1999 Helsinki Summit. First of all, in 2002, the new regional classification was
introduced compatible with the EU’s NUTS (Nomenclature of Territorial Units for
Statistics) classification in Turkey by the Law No 2002/4720. Another important
step is the introduction of Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) in Turkey by
the Law No 5449. In addition, Turkey has given the change to benefit the
Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA) with the beginning of negotiations
in 3rd
October 2005. However, Turkey cannot use the EU’s Structural Funds which
is the biggest source of regional development yet Turkey is not a full member.
Turkey will take an opportunity to benefit these funds when the membership is
completed and enter an important period. For this reason, the most important impact
of Turkey’s membership of the EU will be seen in the field of regional development
thanks to using Structural Funds.
Prepared in this specific contextual atmosphere, this article aims at scrutinizing
the nature of the EU-driven regional policy changes in Turkey and assessing the
extent to which these changes can be put into practice by Turkey, to be functional in
confronting regional economic disparities in the country. In this context, firstly,
Turkey’s five-year development plans and regional policies and regional policy
changes in these policies will be reviewed. Then, acquis of EU regional policy and
Turkey’s progress on the adoption of EU’s regional policy will be examined
168 ADAPTATION OF TURKEY’S REGIONAL POLICIES TO THE EU ACQUIS
critically, particularly referring to Progress Reports. In this regard, Turkey’s
Regular Reports (1998-2004) and Progress Reports (2005-2012) and Turkey’s
position on the adoption to the acquis will be evaluated. Finally, efforts with respect
to adaptation to acquis will be evaluated and the route which Turkey will/must
follow in case of EU membership will be discussed.
1. Transformation in Regional Policy: Understanding ‘New Regionalism’
Although there are various classifications regarding evolution of regional
policies, Soja (2009: 259), as a mainstreaming scholar, has classified the evolution
of regional planning and regional development theories in four phases in historical
perspective:
- 1920-1950: early approaches which focused on resource development and
environmental preservation
- 1950-1980: welfare regionalism, which aims at efficient and equitable economic
development at national scale
- After 1980s: highly competitive entrepreneurial regionalism based on neoliberal
ideas
- After 1990s: Contemporary development of a new regionalism as the foundation
for a new approach to regional planning and regional development theory.
The first and second phases of literature on regional development theory and
policy, and tools used for the implementation of those policies assumed regions as
passive, pre-given and pre-defined territories (Amin & Thrift, 1994; Burfisher,
Robinson & Thierfelder, 2004). Considering the recent practices in the field of
regional development, it is seen that the concept of ‘old regionalism’ was
abandoned and the ‘new regionalism’ (Keating, 1998; Lovering, 1999) approach
has begun to be adopted through focusing on the concepts such as R&D,
innovation, clusters and new industrial spaces. This new approach has become
prominent issue in the field of economic geography and has begun to inform and
frame key aspects of regional policy (Webb & Collis, 2000: 862; Tomaney &
Ward, 2000: 472, Hettne, 2005: 543).
Today, as ongoing main trends, the technological development and globalisation
are transforming regions into dynamic, pro-active, entrepreneurial, continuous
spatial network geographies (Amin & Thrift, 1995). This transformation was
mainly driven by economic change, globalization and European integration, and the
transformation -even the ‘end’ (Ohmae, 1995)- of (nation) state. In this process,
regions and localities have emerged as key sites of economic change and can be
seen as local production systems rather than simply the location of economic
activities.
MARMARA JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN STUDIES 169
Lovering (1999: 379) identifies two main characteristics of ‘new regionalism’,
which are: (1) the ‘region’ is becoming the ‘crucible’ of economic development, (2)
the ‘region’ should be the prime focus of economic policy. The status gained by the
regional scale makes regions as pro-active and active entities which led to a rise of
a series of principles which would have meaning at the local level, such as
sustainability, social inclusion, human resources development, and of course
governance (Florida, 1995). In this context, the key concepts of ‘new regionalism’
approach can be summarized as (OECD, 2009a: 2; 2009b: 69):
- a focus on endogenous assets (such as infrastructure, education, human capital,
innovation, geographic characteristics), rather than exogenous investments and
transfers
- an emphasis on opportunity rather than on disadvantage
- a collective / negotiated governance approach, involving national, regional and
local government plus other stakeholders, with the central government playing a less
dominant role.
Table 1: The ‘Old’ and ‘New’ Regionalism
‘Old’ Regionalism ‘New’ Regionalism
Government Governance
Coordination Collaboration
Accountability Trust
Centralized Decentralized
Hierarchical Multi-Level
Top-to-bottom approach /
Standardized
Bottom-to-top approach /
Tailor-Made
Elite Projects Inclusive Projects
Administrative Regions Active Regions
Less Developed Regions All Regions
Balancing Regional Disparities Growth
Public Measures Public-Private Partnership
(PPP)
Short Term Long Term (Sustainability)
Source: Dulupçu, 2006: 246.
Among others, the failure of the large scale public investments and the state-led
policies which aimed at developing less prosperous regions have caused to rise of
new regionalism. The older generation of regional policies, generally utilized either
attracting inward investments or the large infrastructure investments to certain
locality as tools to develop a region. Thus one-fits-all method has been accepted
among policy circles. This new regional approach is based on the principle that all
regions have their own growth opportunities and all regions can reach their growth
potentials through inside. In this process, regions should wake up their own local
170 ADAPTATION OF TURKEY’S REGIONAL POLICIES TO THE EU ACQUIS
assets to grow, rather than depending on national transfers and subsidies. In this
approach, knowledge production capacity, innovativeness, well-educated
population, connection to global markets, business-friendly environment and
infrastructure system and well-functioning labour system are seen as a source of
regional growth and competitiveness (OECD, 2009a: 2). And also the strategic
coordination at the regional level is also important for economic growth (Webb &
Collis, 2000: 860).
2. Evolution of Regional Policies in Turkey
As the evolution of its economic development, Turkey displays an
understanding of regional development conceived in terms of a ‘residual’ category
(Dulupçu, 2005). This can be observed in the regional policy of the central
government, where the State Planning Organization (SPO)1 ultimately sees
centrally-led and controlled regional economic development as an activity designed
only for less-developed provinces. This has resulted not only from the nature of the
administrative system or state-centred foundations of the Republic, but also from
the prioritization of national economic problems -like the industrialization of the
1960s or the macroeconomic stability of the 1990s. (Öniş & Webb, 1994; Göksu,
2000; Emek, 2004).
- Turkey’s regional development history can be summarized in three different
periods:
- The first period covers the period from the beginning of the Republic (1923) until
the start of the planned development era. In this period, regional planning approach
was ‘construction’ rather than ‘development’. Regional development had been almost
neglected until the planned era.
- The second period starts with the introduction of the 1st FYDP (Five Year
Development Plan) in 1963. Turkey has been put into practice totally nine FYDPs
since 1963. These plans are prepared by the SPO, which is the central administration
responsible for national and regional planning and regional policy. Most of these
plans could not be implemented effectively. The main reason of this situation is the
absence of any regional administrative structure at the intermediate level between
central government and the local authorities. Similarly, the success of rural
development projects -such as Antalya, Çukurova and Zonguldak regions- has been
limited due to the financial and organizational problems. (Loewendahl-Ertugal, 2005:
26).
- The third period starts basically with the acceleration of the EU integration process
when Turkey’s formal candidacy status is accepted in Helsinki Summit in 1999.
Following this, the EU financial assistance along with acquis has forced the central
thinking towards a local understanding. This is partly confessed in Preliminary
1 Recently retitled as Ministry of Development
MARMARA JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN STUDIES 171
National Development Plan-PNDP (DPT, 2003a), 9th Development Plan (DPT,
2007: 57) and Accession Partnership Document (DPT, 2003b).
Turkey has used mainly four tools for regional development policy: regional
plans, priority development areas, provincial development plans, and national
development plans (DPT, 2008: 9). Turkey had regional policies but not regional
development administrations until 2006 because largely of its possible implication
for separatism. Recently, as a reflection of EU membership process, the regional
development plans by the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) were added to
that list (Dulupçu, Gül & Okçu, 2013: 275-276).
The regional dimension has always been in a central position in the
development efforts of Turkey which can be obviously seen from FYDPs (DPT,
1985; 1990; 1996; 2000a). The planning approach based on regional disparities
took place in all FYDPs (between 1962 and 2001 eight plans were prepared). As it
can be seen in Table 2, from the first plan to the last one, regional disparities have
always been among the main problem to be dealt with. However, one cannot see an
integrated policy approach to regional development throughout the planning periods
on the whole, except for the previous 8th FYDP, which employed, although in a
limited manner, strategic and participatory principles and approaches of planning
(DPT, 1962; 1967; 1972; 1978; 1985; 1990; 1996; 2000a).
172 ADAPTATION OF TURKEY’S REGIONAL POLICIES TO THE EU ACQUIS
Table 2: Regional Policies in Five-Year Development Plans
Plans Principles Approaches and
policies
Targets Instruments
1st D
P (19
62-1
967) -Increasing
influence of economic
development on
the regions -Regional
economic
integration
-Regional planning -Growth poles (e.g.
East Marmara,
Çukurova, Antalya, Zonguldak)
-Balanced
urbanization and
regional public service & income
distribution
- Investment
efficiency
-Financial incentives
- Alternatives measures depending on investment in less
favoured regions
2nd
DP
(19
67-1
972)
-Focusing on population
problems
stemmed from rapid
urbanization
-Regional or/and
provincial planning
-Indirect regional planning
-Balanced inter-regional
development
-Balanced (social equity) distribution
between regions
- Investment efficiency
-Tax reductions
-Financial incentives toward
private investments -Pilot projects
-Keban (Second biggest dam in
Turkey)
3rd D
P (19
72-1
977)
-Alleviation of
regional disparities
-Development of particular less
favoured regions
-Sectoral and
provincial planning
Same as in the
second plan
- Financial incentives
-Industrialization programmes for
less favoured regions
-Inventory of local assets
-Provincial planning -Sectoral planning
-‘Packet projects’ -Priority Provinces for
development
4th D
P (19
77-1
982)
-Mobilization of all resources to
solve regional
problems
-Empowerment of inter-sectoral and
inter-regional
connections
-Development of
geographically less favoured regions
-Regional and
sectoral mutual dependency
-Spatial organization
-Interest rate reductions for investments
-Various financial aids
-To publish necessary measures for various sectors and regions
-‘Packet projects’
-Investments in provinces and regions
-Çukurova Urban Development
project -GAP (DPT-JICA)
MARMARA JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN STUDIES 173
5th D
P (19
85-1
989) -To accelerate
development
rationalization of resource using in
less favoured and
sectorally high potential regions
-Direct regional planning, including
studies of regional
effects of projects (proposal of 16
functional regions )
-Regionally balanced
development
depending on social equity
-Scheduling of regional
development tables for
determination of potential resources
-Choosing relevant investments
according to above-mentioned tables
-To provide infrastructures for
industrial projects pre-determined in line with prioritized regions and
relevant sectors
-Financial aids for investments in Priority Provinces for
development
6th D
P (19
90-1
994)
-Integration of
social, administrative,
legal and
financial dimensions for
implementation
-Adaptation of statistical system
in line with the EU and
international
standards
-Planning at regional
and sub-regional
level
-Balanced growth in regions
-Supporting sub-
districts to prevent migration from
villages towards
cities
- Increasing the amount of
available financial resources for
Priority Provinces for development and state support
-Incentives for private sector in
Priority Provinces for development and establishment of
a special fund for this aim -Industrial districts
7th D
P(1
996-
2000
)
-Integration of sectoral and
spatial analysis
-Sectoral specialization of
cities
-City planning -Alleviation of
regional
disparities -Strengthening
competitiveness
-Regional and sub-
regional projects
-Mobilization of regionally embedded
competences
-Sustainable development
-Rationalization of both demographic
change and
migration -To analyse
metropolitan
problems in a separate category
-Policy development
for housing problems
-Regional disparities
- To continue the implementation of Priority Provinces for
development
-Emergency Support Programme to East and Southerneast Anatolia
-GAP
-Legal measures -Housing projects
- Supporting SME’s in Priority
Provinces for development -ZBK, Yeşilırmak Basin,
DOKAP, DAP
8th D
P (20
01-2
005)
-Participatory
planning -Sustainability
-Rationalization
in the use of resources
-Adaptation to
the EU regional development
policies
-Regional planning
from a strategic
perspective -Clustering
-Provincial
Development Plans
-Enhancing
competitiveness -Local
entrepreneurship and
mobilization of local resources
-Regional disparities
-SME’s supports -EU funds
-First comprehensive regional
plans -Human capital investments
Source: DPT, 1962; 1967; 1972; 1978; 1985; 1990; 1996; 2000a; OECD, 1986: 5; 1988: 8.
174 ADAPTATION OF TURKEY’S REGIONAL POLICIES TO THE EU ACQUIS
However the limited availability of public financial resources for regional
development along with non-existence of regional strategic plans -prepared through
a participatory approach and priority determination- and regional programmes
depending on those strategic plans, caused to a limited regional support from the
regional actors. Consequently we have observed poor performance in regional
development which has been directed through centrally designed and implemented
regional development tools.
One can rationalize centrally planned regional development by putting forward
the high degree of disparities among the geographical regions and the provinces in
Turkey. With respect to the geographical regions, the socioeconomic divide
between western and eastern Turkey is at an unacceptable level. According to the
data of year 2001, there is a huge income differences among the provinces as much
as eleven times. This situation is not much different at the regional level. For
example, according to an available per capita GNP index data study for the period
1983-1998, while Turkey has an index value 100, the Marmara Region (the most
prosperous region in the west) has an index value of 156 and for the Eastern
Anatolia Region (the less prosperous region in the east) this figure remains at 41.
The numbers are even worse at the provincial level. For instance, the index value is
168 for the province of Kocaeli, and 24 for Van (DPT, 2003c). To put it in other
words: ‘whereas the eastern half of the country accounts for 37 percent of the
population, its share of GNP is only 22 percent. In contrast, the western part of the
country, with 63 percent of the population accounts for 78 percent of GDP. GDP
per capita ratio is 60 for eastern Turkey and 123 for western Turkey’ (Reeves,
2005: 2).
3. Turkey’s Regionalism: A Brief Evaluation of Progress Reports
3.1 General Framework of EU’s Regional Policy
The 2nd
and 3rd
articles of the constituting Treaty of Rome envisages that ‘to
develop social protection, employment level and economic activities in the
Community through a coherent, harmonized balanced and sustainable manner…to
increase life standard and life quality, and to realize economic and social cohesion’.
In addition to this, articles from 158 to 162 which emphasis ‘economic and social
cohesion’ state the purpose of diminishing disparities among different regions
(including rural areas, less developed regions and islands) in the Community. The
EU realizes the aim of cohesion through the actions of the Structural Funds. In this
regard the Commission evaluates the performance of actions for achieving
economic and social cohesion through a report for every three year, and these
reports also suggest new proposals for the future regional policy actions (Avrupa
Komisyonu Türkiye Temsilciliği, 2000).
MARMARA JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN STUDIES 175
In the EU, regional disparities in terms of development level and life standards
have always been regarded as a regional issue that should be dealt with, by member
states. However political and economic cohesion have necessitated a fight against
regional disparities. Although there exists a certain focus on the problem of
‘regional disparities’ in the EU that led to significant progress in alleviating
disparities, the most prosperous 10 regions’ GDP per capita is still three times
higher than that of the least prosperous 10 regions (IRE, 2004). According to the
EU, balancing regional economies is crucial in order to benefit from single market
opportunities and the EMU. In this line Community spent some 213 billion Euros
on Regional policy issues particularly on the least developed regions for the Budget
period 2000-2006 which is nearly equivalent to one third of the total budget
(Avrupa Komisyonu Türkiye Temsilciliği, 2000). For the budget period the
allocation amount to the target regions through different funds will be 347 billion
Euros. After the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), the regional policy of the EU
is the second largest item of the EU budget.
The 21st chapter in the acquis (in the screening process it is redefined as chapter
22) is called ‘Regional Policy and the Coordination of Structural Instruments’.
Under this chapter the procedures, methods, documents, legislative regulations, and
the framework of Structural and Cohesion Funds are specified. The chapter as well
includes assistance types and methods for new member states and candidates.
Moreover, the eligibility of regions, new assistance types, and new initiatives are
also mentioned in this chapter (Başbakanlık, 2003; EC, 1998-2004).
The acquis under this chapter consists mostly of framework and implementing
regulations, which do not require transposition into national legislation. They define
the rules for drawing up, approving and implementing Structural Funds and
Cohesion Fund actions. These programmes are negotiated and agreed with the
Commission, but implementation is under the responsibility of the Member States.
It is essential that Member States respect Community legislation in general, for
instance in the areas of public procurement, competition and environment, when
selecting and implementing projects, and have the necessary institutional structures
in place to ensure implementation in a sound and cost-effective manner from the
point of view of both management and financial control (Dulupçu & Sungur, 2006;
Brasche, 2001).
As mentioned before, the regional policy is the second largest item of the EU
budget. That means, although there is no compulsory directive or need about the
transfer of the acquis on regional policy and structural instruments to internal
legislation, regional policy will provide the largest financial assistance, and thus
will contribute to national economic growth more than any other chapter of the
acquis.
176 ADAPTATION OF TURKEY’S REGIONAL POLICIES TO THE EU ACQUIS
3.2 Turkey’s Progress on the Adoption to EU’s Regional Policy
One of the perspectives to assess the evolution and development of regional
policies in Turkey is the EU methodology for overall assessment towards the
acquis. This formal process represents itself in two documents: the regular reports
that covered candidacy status and secondly the progress reports which has covered
and will cover negotiation period, namely steps to adapt the acquis. The EU
approach to Turkey in terms of regional policy has always been critical yet regional
issues have been one of the weakest chains of policy design and formation.
However this approaching also indicates the importance of regional policy as a tool
for accessing structural funds which will impose the greatest impact on Turkey and
on its socio-economic development. Interestingly such a great impact has been
minor concern in political circles until recently due to heavily shift to the
Copenhagen criteria, leaving this so-called technical dimension alone. Actually the
issues like the democratization, rule of law and marketization in Turkey have found
strong voice both in Turkey and in Europe. Turkish public circles found these issues
attractive at least in two dimensions. The first is making the EU as an anchor to
reform; the second is the political discourse in which the opposition and ruling
parties can gain competitive advantages through debating each other. On the
European side, the deficits in civil society have played an important role to suppress
full membership in a foreseen period of time.
In this regard a brief evaluation of these reports (between 1998 and 2012) can
serve us to understand regional dimension of the acquis and the Turkey’s position
in regional governance and development. Nonetheless one should bear in mind the
weakness of regional policy in Turkey.
MARMARA JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN STUDIES 177
Table 3: Turkey’s Progress on Implementation of EU Regional Policies
Ter
rito
rial
Org
anis
atio
n
Leg
isla
tive
Fra
mew
ork
Inst
itu
tion
al
Fra
mew
ork
Ad
min
istr
ativ
e
Cap
acit
y
Pro
gra
mm
ing
Monit
ori
ng a
nd
Ev
aluat
ion
Fin
anci
al
Man
agem
ent,
Con
tro
l an
d A
ud
it
1998 – – – – – – –
1999 – – – – – – –
2000 NP NP NP NP NP – –
2001 – NP NP – NP NP NP
2002 SP NP NP – NP NP NP
2003 SP NP SP – SP NP NP
2004 NP SP SP – SP SP SP
2005 NP LP LP SP NP NP SP
2006 NP SP NP LP SP GP SP
2007 – SP SP LP GP NP SP
2008 – SP LP LP GP SP SP
2009 – SP SP LP SP LP LP
2010 – SP SP SP SP SP SP
2011 – NP SP SP GP SP SP
2012 – SP SP SP SP SP SP
– There is no such title NP No Progress
LP Limited / Very Weak Progress
SP Progress / Some Progress GP Good Progress
178 ADAPTATION OF TURKEY’S REGIONAL POLICIES TO THE EU ACQUIS
First of all, it can be seen that neither radical nor incremental progress has been
achieved until 2002 for the harmonization of Turkey’s regional policies to EU
regional policy (see Table 3). Although Turkey is an ‘official candidate’ since 1999,
we see that there was no progress between 1998 and 2001 in none of the titles that
discussed in the report, namely territorial organization, legislative framework,
institutional framework, administrative capacity, programming, monitoring and
evaluation, financial management, control and audit. Following 2002, Turkey has
been criticized in the EC Progress Reports that only limited progress has been
achieved at least in one or more areas. For example, there is only progress in 2002,
which is in the area of territorial organisation that is the introduction of the
definition of NUTS system. The favourable statements can be found in 2003
Progress Report, relating to NUTS system (about the establishment of 26 NUTS
Level 2 regions with Law No: 2002/4720). However, there is no progress in this
area (territorial organization) since 2003 apart from NUTS system. Looking closer
to the field of legislative framework and institutional framework, it is mentioned by
the EC Regular Reports that Turkey has made some progress after 2004. In
addition, it is seen that the progress has accelerated in all fields in recent years.
Especially there is a good progress in all areas in 2010 and 2012.
Secondly; Turkey has made progress mostly in the areas of Programming,
Financial Management, Control and Audit, Legislative Framework and Institutional
Framework about the harmonization of the acquis. Regarding territorial
organization, there is no progress except NUTS classification, as mentioned before.
However, there has no evaluation in this area about Turkey’s progress since 2006
because there is no such a title in Progress Reports following 2006. Furthermore,
Turkey has shown little progress in Administrative Capacity. The achievement in
this area has seen as limited by EC. However, the developments about
administrative capacity between 2010 and 2012 are satisfactory as mentioned in
related Progress Reports. The reports can be analyzed in two periods: candidacy
and negotiation periods.
3.2.1 Candidacy Period (1998-2005)
The very first report, namely 1998 Regular Report, basically aims to define
regional disparities in Turkey, referring to less developed regions and West-East
divide. In this report no detailed assessment about Turkey’s progress and
performance on regional policies were given because of the lack of information
from the Turkish authorities. Turkey’s regional disparities are criticized and it is
mentioned that Turkey's development lags well behind the Community average and
it is essential for both sides to implement an effective structural policy (EC, 1998:
50). Obviously the report has no concrete offers for the solution of regional
disparities.
MARMARA JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN STUDIES 179
Similar expressions of the 1998 Regular Report can be found in 1999 and 2000
Regular Reports which had stressed that Turkey is experiencing the most acute
regional problems (EC, 1999: 40; 2000: 30). Progress report is informed that
Turkey would have to adapt its central administration in order to address this
priority in allocating significant human and budgetary resources in this area,
improving administrative procedures and establishing operational structures in the
regions. However all these suggestion are known by the central government and
criticisms seem to be polite without any radical policy implications.
In 2000 Progress Report, there is a criticism that there is no significant progress
on regional policies since from the last regular report (EC, 2000: 59). There are lots
of critics and suggestions about territorial organisation, legislative framework,
preparation for programming, administrative capacity. Most important of all,
concerning territorial organization, it is advised that Turkey needs to propose to the
Commission a NUTS classification in accordance with Community rules.
In 2001 Progress Report, the criticism has been worsening. In the report, it is
mentioned that no developments has been reported and no further progress has been
made about legislative framework, institutional structures, programming,
monitoring and evaluation, financial management and control (EC, 2001: 77). In the
report, as an achievement, it is mentioned that the SPO and the State Institute of
Statistics have started to prepare a NUTS classification in accordance with
Community rules.
In 2002, the first major development about the implementation of EU’s regional
policy has been achieved, namely the introduction of NUTS System. This was also
mentioned in the 2002 Regular Report (EC, 2002: 109) and it is signed that this
situation has been represented a first substantial step towards the comparability of
Turkish regional statistics with the statistics from other regions in Europe.
However, it is once again criticized that there is no progress in the fields of
legislative framework, institutional structures, programming, monitoring and
evaluation, financial management and control. Additionally, it is stressed that
Turkey still needs to develop the structures necessary for the organisation and the
implementation of the structural policies.
In 2003 Progress Report, there is some progress regarding territorial
organisation, institutional structures, and programming. The issues highlighted in
the report are that the approval of NUTS classification (with Law No: 2002/4720),
the establishment of new department in the SPO (about pre-accession programmes)
and the preparation of a National Development Plan for 2004-2006 period. It is
stated that no developments are to be reported in the fields of legislative framework,
monitoring and evaluation, financial management and control (EC, 2003: 104-105).
180 ADAPTATION OF TURKEY’S REGIONAL POLICIES TO THE EU ACQUIS
In 2004 Regular Report, it is criticised that very limited developments are made
in the area of regional policy since from the last report. Looking in detail, no
progress about territorial organisation has been done and some progress about
legislative framework, institutional structures (establishment of service unions in
some regions to form a NUTS Level 2 unit), programming (approval of PNDP),
monitoring and evaluation, financial management and control have been achieved.
However, these developments regarded as insufficient and it is noticed that regional
development structures at regional level remain weak in Turkey (EC, 2004: 132). It
is advised that Turkey should establish the bodies and mechanisms needed to
implement the acquis.
On the other hand, the candidacy status also includes a worthwhile financial
dimension Turkey was not supported through the PHARE, ISPA and SAPARD
funds, from which the previous candidate countries benefit (these programmes were
abolished and replaced with IPA). In 2000-2006 period, Turkey was supported by
the EU funds that are aggregated under the headline of ‘Pre-Accession Financial
Assistance for Turkey’. In this period, funds were allocated mainly for capacity
building projects and legal and institutional regulations on the adaptation of the
acquis in membership process. In 2002-2006, a total of 1.3 billion Euros was
allocated to Turkey for total 164 projects (Ministry for EU Affairs, 2012: 7).
3.2.2 Negotiation Period (2005-2012)
On 3 October 2005, membership negotiations were symbolically opened with
Turkey and the effect of this development on the progress in regional policies can
be seen in subsequent progress reports.
In 2005 Progress Report, Turkey is criticized because there is no progress about
territorial organisation and NUTS Level 2 regions do not correspond to any
administrative structures. At the same time, it is criticized that no development is
seen on the legal framework for the establishment of RDAs. Regarding institutional
framework, it is stated that there has been little progress on this area. In the report,
it is also noticed that no progress has made about programming, monitoring and
evaluation (EC, 2005: 101-102).
In 2006 Progress Report, as in 2004 and 2005 reports, Turkey is criticized about
territorial organisation, regarding NUTS system. It is stated that most institutions in
Turkey continue to use the traditional geographical regions as the main reference
(EC, 2006a: 56). Regarding legislative framework, it is stress that there was some
progress in the development of the legislative framework. The report has indicated
that there was positive improvement about Development Agencies. In institutional
framework and administrative capacity areas, it is stated that some progress about
programming, financial management and control have made since from last report.
The report indicates that there is a good progress about monitoring and evaluation,
MARMARA JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN STUDIES 181
regarding Monitoring Information System. Overall, it is described that Turkey’s
alignment with the acquis in regional policy and coordination of structural
instruments is modest.
Afterwards 2007 Progress Report, the title of territorial organization is not
included in the progress report. Hence, there is no evaluation on this subject in
subsequent progress reports. With regard legislative framework, it is mentioned that
Turkey made progress, but also it is criticized that the law setting up RDAs has
been challenged by a number of associations and preparations in this area are at an
early stage. Also it is argued that funding for the two Development Agencies
established in Izmir and Adana has been suspended pending the decision of the
Constitutional Court on the legality of the legal basis for Development Agencies.
The other fields that have made progress are institutional framework and financial
management, control and audit. It is stated that there is very weak progress on
administrative capacity and it is criticized that there is no progress about monitoring
and evaluation. In general, Turkey's alignment with the acquis in this chapter is
limited (EC, 2007: 57).
At the end of the year 2007, the second major development has been made by
Turkish Government which is the establishment of Development Agencies with
Law No: 5449 in November. This progress is mentioned in 2008 Progress Report
(EC, 2008: 64). As regards programming, preparing Strategic Coherence
Framework (SCF) is underlined as good progress in this area. It is also stated that
there is some progress in monitoring and evaluation, financial management, control
and audit. However, it is criticized that there is limited progress in institutional
framework and administrative capacity.
In 2009 Progress Report, it is criticized that there is very weak progress in the
following areas: administrative capacity, monitoring and evaluation, financial
management, control and audit. Besides, it is noticed that progress was made in
some areas, namely legislative framework, institutional framework, and
programming. The major developments that were highlighted in the report are;
implementing legislation on support for projects and activities from development
agencies (November 2008) and Turkey’s IPA Framework Agreement (December
2008), and establishment of Development Agencies in all provisional NUTS Level
2 regions (EC, 2009: 67-68).
In 2010 Progress Report (EC, 2010), represent a positive outlook. Similarly in
the 2011 Progress Report, it is stated that progress was made in institutional
framework, administrative capacity, programming, monitoring and evaluation,
financial management, control and audit. It is the only exception that there is no
progress in legislative framework. As regards institutional framework, the
establishment of the High Council of Regional Development and the Regional
182 ADAPTATION OF TURKEY’S REGIONAL POLICIES TO THE EU ACQUIS
Development Committee (RDC), the appointment of Secretaries-General in all 26
DAs and the preparation of regional plans in 24 of 26 NUTS Level 2 regions are
welcomed (EC, 2011: 83-84).
Lastly, in 2012 Progress Report, as in 2010, there is a positive outlook in all
areas. With regard legislative framework, the restructuring the Ministry of
Transport, the Ministry of Environment and Forestry, the Ministry of Industry and
Trade and the Ministry of Labour and Social Security are underlined. Similarly, as
regards institutional framework, the establishment of Ministry of Environment and
Urbanisation and the Ministry of Science, Industry and Technology are noticed. It is
stated that there are also some progress in other areas. However, at the end of the
report, as an overall assessment, it is noticed that ‘preparations in this area are not
very advanced’ (EC, 2012: 70).
Considering the financial dimension of negotiation period, it can be see that
after the full membership negotiations began in October 2005, there has been a
substantial increase in TR-EU financial assistance budget. In the 2007-2013 period
a new era has begun in the relations between EU and Turkey in terms of EU funds.
Figure 1: EU Budget Allocated to Turkey
Source: Ministry for EU Affairs, http://www.ab.gov.tr
In the budget period 2007-2013, the mechanisms of financial assistance of EU
to candidate and potential candidate countries are consolidated into a single
instrument which is called Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA). In this
context, the candidate countries will be able to get support from the funds on the
basis of 5 priorities: (I) Cohesion Assistance and Institutional Capacity, (II)
Regional and Trans-boundary Cooperation, (III) Regional Development, (IV)
Improvement of Human Resources, and (V) Rural Development (EC, 2006b: 85).
For the budget period 2007-2013, about 10 Billion Euros has been allocated to
candidate and potential candidate countries under the IPA. Considering the
population and area size, 48.2 percent of this fund (4.8 Billion Euros) is allocated to
MARMARA JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN STUDIES 183
Turkey for 2007-2013 (Ministry for EU Affairs, 2012: 7). The distribution of IPA
according to its components is as follows:
Table 4: Turkey’s 2007-2013 EU Fund According to IPA Components
IPA Component Fund
(Million Euro)
I. Transition Assistance and
Institution Building 1.667,5
II. Cross-border Cooperation 20,6
III. Regional Development 1.778,4
IV. Human Resources
Development 474,1
V. Rural Development 854,6
Total 4.795,2
Source: Ministry for EU Affairs, http://www.ab.gov.tr
It is important to mention that the contribution of these funds seems to be has
little impact considering the size of Turkish economy. The fund allocated to Turkey
cannot be considered as sufficient but Turkey is trying to utilize these funds with
maximum effort. For 2007-2013, EU fund provided to Turkey under IPA is €66 per
capita which is €171 for Bosnia & Herzegovina and €378 for Montenegro (Ministry
for EU Affairs, http://www.ab.gov.tr). However, the mechanisms and systems that
these funds are more important; hence it introduces or supports systematic change
at administrative level.
4. Turning Points
In the period of 8th FYDP, Turkey’s accession and adaptation process to the EU
has accelerated. It is expected that accession will have direct impact on Turkish
regional policies. In this regard, in order to increase the efficiency of regional
development in creating value added to both regional and national economies,
designing new tools seems inevitable. Moreover, for Turkey, it is important to adapt
a similar approach in regional development policy like the EU. This will lead to
more effective exploitation of pre-accession financial assistance and eventually
accelerate accession process. Following the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP),
the regional policy of the EU is the second largest item of the EU budget. That
means, although there is no compulsory directive or need about the transfer of the
acquis on regional policy and structural instruments to internal legislation, regional
policy will provide the largest financial assistance, and thus will contribute to
national economic growth more than any other chapter of the acquis.
184 ADAPTATION OF TURKEY’S REGIONAL POLICIES TO THE EU ACQUIS
Figure 2: Milestones in Turkish Regional Policy: the EU Impact
In this context, various critical steps have been taken relating to adaptation to
acquis. First of all, in 2002, the new regional classification was introduced
compatible with the EU’s NUTS classification in Turkey by the Law No
2002/4720. In 2004, as another important step, the PNDP which was prepared by
the SPO submitted to the EU. Another important step is the introduction of RDAs
in Turkey by the Law No 5449. In this chapter, these efforts will be evaluated in
detail.
4.1 Realization of the NUTS System
In the period of 8th FYDP, the EU accession process of Turkey also makes
radical changes in regional development policies and implementation possible.
These changes are: (i) the necessary infrastructure is being created at the central and
local levels in order to prepare for the structural funds that could be used after
membership, and (ii) the environment required for an active and participatory
regional development policy is being prepared (DPT, 2007: 55). In this context a
critical step was taken in the 8th FYDP period and The Nomenclature of Territorial
Units for Statistics (NUTS), which enables the determination of the framework for
regional development policies, the collection of regional statistics and the creation
of a comparable statistical database harmonized with the EU regional statistics
system was realized at three levels in 2002 (Ertugal, 2005: 6; DPT, 2007: 56,
Başbakanlık, 2002). The decision of the Turkish Government (no: 2002/4720)
related to the implementation of NUTS was published in the Official Gazette of the
Republic of Turkey (date: 09.22.2002, no: 24884) and was put into practice.
According to this framework, 12 Nomenclature of Territorial Units (NTU) were
defined as Level-1, 26 NTU were defined as Level-2, and 81 NTU (provinces) were
defined as Level-3. The cabinet also agreed on that the NUTS will be the basis for
regional policy.
1998 1999 2002 2007 2004 2008 2010
Declaration of Turkey’s ‘official
candidacy’
Introduction
of NUTS System
Establishment
of RDAs
Preliminary National
Development Plan
Regional Plans
2012
MARMARA JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN STUDIES 185
Figure 3: NUTS Level 2 Regions
Source: DPT
4.2 Learning to Programme: Preliminary National Development Plan
In 1999 Helsinki Summit, Turkey was declared as a candidate country. In
Helsinki Summit, it is decided that ‘Turkey is a candidate State destined to join the
Union on the basis of the same criteria as applied to the other candidate States.
Building on the existing European Strategy, Turkey, like other candidate States,
will benefit from a pre-accession strategy to stimulate and support its reforms.’
(DPT, 2003b: i). Following this decision, the Accession Partnership with Turkey
was adopted and the National Programme for the Adoption of the Acquis (NPAA)
was approved by the Government of Turkey. The EC also requested from Turkey to
prepare a Preliminary National Development Plan (PNDP), as with other candidate
countries. As a result of this, with the coordination of the SPO Under-Secretariat,
the PNDP was prepared. This plan, which is co-financed by EU financial support is
an integrated plan in countrywide. The main difference of this plan from previous
development plans is that this plan has a strong financial aspect and the
responsibilities are clearly defined.
Turkey’s first PNDP aimed to form the basis for the use of the financial
assistance towards economic and social cohesion to be provided by the EU within
the framework of Turkey-EU relations, during the 2004-2006 period. The legal
bases of the pre-accession financial assistance for Turkey are Council Regulation
(EC) No 390/2001 of 26 February 2001 and Council Regulation (EC) No
2500/2001 of 17 December 2001. It is aimed that during the PNDP period, pre-
accession financial assistance shall be used in an effective way and establishment of
the necessary infrastructure shall be initiated for the utilization of structural funds
after accession. For this purpose, four development axes / pillars were determined
in the PNDP. These are (DPT, 2003b: iv):
186 ADAPTATION OF TURKEY’S REGIONAL POLICIES TO THE EU ACQUIS
1. Enhancing the Competitiveness of Enterprises
2. Developing the Human Resources and Increasing the Employment
3. Improvement of Infrastructure Services and Environmental Protection
4. Increasing the Economic Power of Regions, Reducing the Interregional
Development Disparities, and Accelerating Rural Development
The main objective of PNDP was to prepare to the EU funds. Turkey has not
been supported through the PHARE, ISPA and SAPARD funds, from which the
candidate countries benefit. Currently, Turkey is supported by the EU funds that are
aggregated under the headline of ‘Pre-Accession Financial Assistance for Turkey’.
To benefit from the mentioned funds, Turkey prepared the PNDP that has also been
prepared by the other candidate countries, which was pre-requested by the
European Commission (Dulupçu & Sungur, 2006).
4.3 Establishment of Regional Development Agencies
Another turning point in terms of regional development policies is the
establishment of RDAs. On 25 January 2006, as an important step, the legislation
for the formation of RDAs was accepted (Law No: 5449).
In the establishment of RDAs, the NUTS system was based on the establishment
of RDAs and NUTS Level 2 regions were decided to establishment of RDAs. Total
of 26-Development Agencies were established in all provisional NUTS Level 2
regions. Firstly, as of July 2006, with decision of Council of Ministers, No:
2006/10550 Izmir Development Agency (NUTS Level 2 TR31 Region) and
Çukurova Development Agency (NUTS Level 2 TR62 Region) were established
and began functioning. The decisions on the establishment of RDAs were published
in the Official Gazette in 2008 and 2009 and all of them began operations.
MARMARA JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN STUDIES 187
Table 5: NUTS Level 2 Regions and Regional Development Agencies
REGION INCLUDED PROVINCES CENTRE
TR31 İzmir İzmir
TR62 Adana, Mersin Adana
TR10 İstanbul İstanbul
TR52 Karaman, Konya Konya
TR83 Amasya, Çorum, Samsun, Tokat Samsun
TRA1 Bayburt, Erzincan, Erzurum Erzurum
TRB2 Bitlis, Hakkâri, Muş, Van Van
TRC1 Adıyaman, Gaziantep, Kilis Gaziantep
TRC2 Diyarbakır, Şanlıurfa Diyarbakır
TRC3 Batman, Mardin, Şırnak, Siirt Mardin
TR21 Edirne, Kırklareli, Tekirdağ Tekirdağ
TR22 Balıkesir, Çanakkale Balıkesir
TR32 Aydın, Denizli, Muğla Denizli
TR33 Afyonkarahisar, Kütahya, Manisa, Uşak Kütahya
TR41 Bilecik, Bursa, Eskişehir Bursa
TR42 Bolu, Düzse, Kocaeli, Sakarya, Yalova Kocaeli
TR51 Ankara Ankara
TR61 Antalya, Burdur, Isparta Isparta
TR63 Hatay, Kahramanmaraş, Osmaniye Hatay
TR71 Aksaray, Kırıkkale, Kırşehir, Nevşehir, Niğde Nevşehir
TR72 Kayseri, Sivas, Yozgat Kayseri
TR81 Bartın, Karabük, Zonguldak Zonguldak
TR82 Çankırı, Kastamonu, Sinop Kastamonu
TR90 Artvin, Giresun, Gümüşhane, Ordu, Rize,
Trabzon
Trabzon
TRA2 Ağrı, Ardahan, Iğdır, Kars Kars
TRB1 Bingöl, Elazığ, Malatya, Tunceli Malatya
Source: DPT.
Turkey benefits from IPA since 2007 and there is a regional development
dimension with total budget of 1.778,4 billion Euros, as seen from Table 4.
However, this budget is not directly related with RDAs. RDA like institutions were
188 ADAPTATION OF TURKEY’S REGIONAL POLICIES TO THE EU ACQUIS
established as ‘service unions’ (the name given by the SPO) with financial
assistances between 2004 and 2006 depending PNDP.
At the beginning, the government and bureaucrats thought and established
RDAs to provide a preparation to Structural Funds. However, they became a kind
of a part of national planning when negotiations blocked. In other words, today,
RDAs became a domestic policy tool instead of European policy. Nonetheless the
newly emerged RDAs have some criticisms and insufficiencies. For example; the
act on the RDAs was approved without sufficient participation of local actors,
particularly the formal partner of the RDAs. Similarly insufficient information was
given to local actors about the PNDP, which has reduced the project-preparing
capacity of localities. Moreover, we can observe the low level of awareness in the
local units of the central government about the PNDP. In addition provinces as
administrative bodies are still affective compared to RDAs. Because central budget
is still distributed according to provincial system through various ministries.
When considering the theory behind the establishment of RDAs, it is possible to
say that RDAs are policy and implementation bodies in accordance with ‘bottom-
up’ approach, as ‘new regionalism’ suggests. Although RDAs are not compulsory,
Turkey has accepted this model as changing in regional development
understanding. However, the determination of the geographical borders of the
RDAs under the NUTS system is somehow mysterious. There is no clear approach
in the determination of the borders of the RDAs. The SPO, most likely, utilized the
findings of previous researches such as functional regions study of the 1980s (DPT,
1982; 2000b: 29; Filiztekin, 2008: 95) and attractive centres of the 2000s (DPT,
2007) instead of employing a bottom-to-up approach.
4.4 Resistence of Centralism
As mentioned above, after the Law No: 5449 was approved, two RDAs (İzmir
and Çukurova) were established and began functioning in 2006. However, CHP2
(opposition party) was filed to the Constitutional Court for cancellation and
suspension of execution of some articles of Law No. 5449. Its ground is shown as
‘Development agencies are neither public institutions nor private companies, but
they are using public resources and there is a serious contradiction to the
Constitution’. In addition Development Agencies is based on classification of
NUTS Level 2 and CHP is argued that such a classification could not be based in
the organization of public institutions because in the Constitution of the Republic,
only 81 provinces are identified as administrative units. And CHP has argued that
classifications which are based on different levels are contrary to the Constitution
(Akdenizli, 2007). The existing Development Agencies have stopped their activities
2 Republican People’s Party
MARMARA JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN STUDIES 189
nearly during a year because of the cases which is claimed to the Constitutional
Court and the Council of State. The decision of the Constitutional Court about Law
is ended with positive results so Izmir and Çukurova Development Agencies, which
were established in March 2008, were re-started operations. Then there is no any
legal obstacle in front of the establishment of Development Agencies. As a result of
this, during the years 2008 and 2009, RDAs were established and began operations
in the remaining of 24 regions.
Development agencies is exposured to serious criticism because of this issue
was not explained to the public sufficiently and so public awareness is failed. RDAs
are being implemented in EU during long years and they were asked to put into
practice in Turkey which is a candidate country of EU. But this situation is
perceived as EU’s preparation of Turkey to the state system. In addition, the act on
the RDAs was approved without sufficient participation of local actors, particularly
the formal partners of the RDAs. Similarly insufficient information was given to
local actors about the PNDP, which has reduced the project-preparing capacity of
localities. Moreover, we can observe the low level of awareness in the local units of
the central government about the PNDP.
Conclusion: Quo Vadis?
The 21st Chapter is the most contributing subject of the acquis to the economic
and social development of Turkey in the EU full membership process. This chapter
becomes the basic finance area of pre-full membership period. Therefore, the 21st
Chapter of the acquis determines the vision of not only regional but also national
development. In this context, Turkey’s negotiation process with the EU, by and
large, will profoundly shape the future orientation of regional policy in the country.
Turkey, in order to benefit efficiently from the gains linked to establishing full
adaptation to the acquis, should well comprehend and know the acquis on regional
policy, and well evaluate and interpret the critical points it bears.
The acquis under the 21st chapter has basically two interconnected dimensions:
technical and political. The technical dimension consists of restructuring the SPO
and regional programming. In this regard, the newly established RDAs in Turkey
cannot be the reflection of the regional level as a suitable policy scale, but be that of
mere Europeanization, if radical measures on decentralization are not taken by and
large. It is important to mention that the geographical scale of Turkey enforces the
SPO to create a more decentralized system of governance and economic planning;
but once again, decentralization has been born as a part of centralization. Moreover,
the regions, particularly at the NUTS Level 2, are created for the sake of the
accession without consulting to the locals in the existing provinces or providing
enough public awareness.
190 ADAPTATION OF TURKEY’S REGIONAL POLICIES TO THE EU ACQUIS
To sum up the EU adaptation process has three main implications for the
regional policies of Turkey:
Restructuring and questioning at the regional level
The devolution of the responsibilities of field units of central government
to local administrations and municipalities
Increase and development in local financial capacity and capabilities.
The ongoing regional programmes co-funded by the EU have already proved
that there is a critical lack of regional policymaking capacity at the regional level.
In other words, unprepared regionalization would probably cause under- or mis-
utilization of limited resources. This issue brings us to the political dimension of
chapter 21st. The lack of regional awareness, along with insufficient regional
policymaking incentives, could not accelerate the accession process unless a new
decision-making process is included to the system: devolution. Accountability and
power autonomy should settle within the RDAs and provincial administrations.
Otherwise, regions would be inactive partners of the regional policy, and the
regional programmes would turn into centrally imposed development plans, as they
have always been.
MARMARA JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN STUDIES 191
References:
Akdenizli, D., (2007), “Kalkınma Ajansları Neden Gerekli?”, (2 September 2007), Radikal.
Amin, A. & Thrift, N. (1994), Globalization, Institutions and Regional Economic
Development in Europe, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Amin, A. & Thrift, N., (1995), “Institutional Issues for the European Regions: From Markets
and Plans to Socioeconomics and Powers of Association”, Economy And Society, 24(1),
pp. 41-65.
Avrupa Komisyonu Türkiye Temsilciliği (2000), Avrupa Birliği Bölgesel Politika: Yerli
Kaynakların Ekonomik Gelişme İçin Harekete Geçirilmesi, Ankara.
Başbakanlık, (2002), 2002/4720 Sayılı Bölgesel İstatistiklerin Toplanması, Geliştirilmesi,
Bölgelerin Sosyo-Ekonomik Analizlerinin Yapılması, Bölgesel Politikaların
Çerçevesinin Belirlenmesi ve Avrupa Birliği Bölgesel İstatistik Sistemine Uygun
Karşılaştırılabilir İstatistikî Veri Tabanı Oluşturulması Amacıyla Ülke Çapında İstatistikî
Bölge Birimleri Sınıflandırılmasının Tanımlanmasına ilişkin Karar, (22 September
2002), 24884 Sayılı Resmi Gazete.
Başbakanlık, (2003), Avrupa Birliği Müktesebatının Üstlenilmesine İlişkin Türkiye Ulusal
Programı, (24 July 2003), 25178 Sayılı Resmi Gazete.
Brasche, U., (2001), Avrupa Birliği’nin Bölgesel Politikası ve Türkiye’nin Uyumu, (trans.) by
H. Cansevdi, İktisadi Kalkınma Vakfı Yayınları, İstanbul.
Burfisher, M.E., Robinson, S. & Thierfelder, K. (2004), Regionalism: Old and New, Theory
and Practice, International Food Policy Research Institute, Markets, Trade and
Institutions Division Working Paper No: 65.
DPT (1962), Birinci Beş Yıllık Kalkınma Planı, DPT, Ankara.
DPT (1967), İkinci Beş Yıllık Kalkınma Planı, DPT, Ankara.
DPT (1972), Üçüncü Beş Yıllık Kalkınma Planı, DPT, Ankara.
DPT (1978), Dördüncü Beş Yıllık Kalkınma Planı, DPT, Ankara.
DPT (1982), Türkiye'de Yerleşme Merkezlerinin Kademelenmesi: Ülke Yerleşme Merkezleri
Sistemi, DPT, Ankara.
DPT (1985), Beşinci Beş Yıllık Kalkınma Planı, DPT, Ankara.
DPT (1990), Altıncı Beş Yıllık Kalkınma Planı, DPT, Ankara.
DPT (1996), Yedinci Beş Yıllık Kalkınma Planı, DPT, Ankara.
DPT (2000a), Uzun Vadeli Strateji ve Sekizinci Beş Yıllık Kalkınma Planı, DPT, Ankara.
DPT (2000b), Sekizinci Beş Yıllık Kalkınma Planı Bölgesel Gelişme Özel İhtisas
Komisyonu Raporu, DPT, Ankara.
DPT (2003a), Türkiye İçin Katılım Ortaklığı Belgesi, Ankara.
DPT (2003b), Ön Ulusal Kalkınma Planı (2004-2006), Ankara.
DPT (2003c), İller ve Bölgeler İtibarıyla GSYİH’daki Gelişmeler (1987-2000), DPT, Ankara.
DPT (2007), Dokuzuncu Beş Yıllık Kalkınma Planı, DPT, Ankara.
192 ADAPTATION OF TURKEY’S REGIONAL POLICIES TO THE EU ACQUIS
Dulupçu, M.A. & Sungur, O. (2006), “Adaptation Problem of Turkey to the Regional
Policies Within the Process of the EU Membership: Dilemmas and Opportunities”,
International Conference on The Changes and Transformations in the Socio-Economic
and Political Structure of Turkey Within the EU Negotiations, Dumlupınar University,
March 16-18, Kütahya, pp. 297-316.
Dulupçu, M.A., (2005), “Regionalization for Turkey: An Illusion or a Cure?”, European
Urban and Regional Studies, 12(9), pp. 99-115.
Dulupçu, M.A., (2006), “Bölgesel Politikalar Kopyalanabilir mi? Bölgeselleş(tir)me
(Yönetim) Karşısında (Yeni) Bölge(sel)cilik (Yönetişim)”, Bölgesel Kalkınma ve
Yönetişim Sempozyumu, ODTU, September 7-8, Ankara, pp. 233-255.
Dulupçu, M.A., Gül, H. & Okçu, M., (2013), Regional and Local Perspectives in Economic
Development in Turkey, Turkey in the New Millennium: A Critique of Political, Social
and Economic Transformations, Kamalak, İ. & Gül, H. (eds), Lambert Academic
Publishing, pp. 263-311.
Emek, U., (2004), Understanding Structural Reforms in Turkey, Turkey and the EU
Enlargement: Processes of Incorporation, Griffits R.T & Özdemir, D. (eds), Istanbul
Bilgi University Press, Istanbul, pp. 103-128.
Ertugal, E., (2005), “Strategies For Regional Development: Challenges Facing Turkey on the
Road to EU Membership”, Turkish Policy Quarterly, 4(3), pp. 63-86.
European Commission (EC) (1998), Regular Report from the Commission on Turkey’s
Progress Towards Accession, 4 November, Brussels.
European Commission (EC) (1999), Regular Report from the Commission on Turkey’s
Progress Towards Accession, 13 October, Brussels.
European Commission (EC) (2000), Regular Report from the Commission on Turkey’s
Progress Towards Accession, 8 November, Brussels.
European Commission (EC) (2001), Regular Report on Turkey’s Progress Towards
Accession, 13 November, Brussels.
European Commission (EC) (2002), Regular Report on Turkey’s Progress Towards
Accession, 6 October, Brussels.
European Commission (EC) (2003), Regular Report on Turkey’s Progress Towards
Accession, 8 November, Brussels.
European Commission (EC) (2004), Regular Report on Turkey’s Progress Towards
Accession, 9 October, Brussels.
European Commission (EC) (2005a), Turkey 2005 Progress Report, 9 November, Brussels.
European Commission (EC) (2005b), Proposal for a Council Decision-On the Principles,
Priorities and Conditions contained in the Accession Partnership with Turkey, 9
September, Brussels.
European Commission (EC) (2005c), 2005 Enlargement Strategy Paper, 9 September,
Brussels.
European Commission (EC) (2006a), Turkey 2006 Progress Report, 8 November, Brussels.
MARMARA JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN STUDIES 193
European Commission (EC) (2006b), Council Regulation No: 1085/2006, Official Journal of
European Union, Date: 31.07.2006
European Commission (EC) (2007), Turkey 2007 Progress Report, 6 November, Brussels.
European Commission (EC) (2008), Turkey 2008 Progress Report, 5 November, Brussels.
European Commission (EC) (2009), Turkey 2009 Progress Report, 14 October, Brussels.
European Commission (EC) (2010), Turkey 2010 Progress Report, 9 November, Brussels.
European Commission (EC) (2011), Turkey 2011 Progress Report, 12 October, Brussels.
European Commission (EC) (2012), Turkey 2012 Progress Report, 10 October, Brussels.
Filiztekin, A., (2008), Türkiye’de Bölgesel Farklar ve Politikalar, TÜSİAD Yayınları No:
TÜSİAD-T/2008-09/471, Istanbul.
Florida, R., (1995), “Toward The Learning Region”, Futures, 27, pp. 527-536.
Göksu, S. (2000), Küreselleşme ve Planlama Sonu, Dünya Şehircilik Günü 23. Kolokyumu -
3.Bin Yılda Küreselleşme ve Planlama, Yıldız Teknik University Press, Istanbul.
Hettne, B., (2005), “Beyond the ‘New’ Regionalism”, New Political Economy, 10(4), pp.
543-571.
IRE - Innovating Regions in Europe (IRE), <www.innovating-regions.org>.
Keating, M., (1998), The New Regionalism in Western Europe, Territorial Restructuring and
Political Change, Edward Elgar Publishing, Aldershot.
Loewendahl-Ertugal, E., (2005), “Europeanisation of Regional Policy and Regional
Governance: The Case of Turkey”, European Political Economy Review, 3(1), pp. 18-53.
Lovering, J., (1999), “Theory Led by Policy? The Inadequacies of the ‘New Regionalism’ in
Economic Geography Illustrated from the Case of Wales”, International Journal of
Urban and Regional Research, 23, pp. 379-395.
Ministry for EU Affairs (2012), 2012 Progress Report prepared by Turkey, December.
OECD (1986), Documentation for the Review of Regional Problems and Policies in Turkey,
Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry, England.
OECD (1988), Regional Problems and Policies in Turkey, Paris.
OECD (2009a), Policy Brief, March.
OECD (2009b), How Regions Grow: Trends and Analysis, Paris.